The High Court have provided guidance on the calculation of general damages for multiple injuries under the Personal Injuries Guidelines in the case of Hazel O’Sullivan v Gerald Ryan [2024] IEHC 326.
The Plaintiff sustained serious injuries in a road traffic incident in 2021 when the defendant crossed over to the plaintiff’s side of the road and collided head on with her vehicle. Liability was not at issue and so the only issue to be determined by the court was the quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.
Past special damages were agreed in the amount of €28,572 and future special damages were calculated by the plaintiff’s actuary as between €179,274 and €196,960. The court adopted the analysis of Mr. Justice Coffey in Keogh v. Byrne [2024] IEHC 19 in determining the correct approach to the application of the Personal Injuries Guidelines in calculating general damages.
In Keogh v Byrne the court found that the appropriate approach in cases involving multiple injuries is “to identify the injury in the bracket of damages within the Guidelines that best resembles the most significant of the claimant’s injuries. The trial judge should then value that injury and thereafter uplift the value to ensure that the claimant is fairly and justly compensated for all of the additional pain, discomfort and limitations arising from their lesser injury/injuries.”
The plaintiff sustained injuries to her left leg, her back, her chest and she suffered from PTSD following the accident. The plaintiff sustained a transverse fracture to the middle third of her right femur and the plaintiff gave evidence that she still suffered from some discomfort, that she remained somewhat unsteady on uneven surfaces and going uphill, and that she felt she had a limp. The plaintiff also had significant scarring on her leg. The court found that the plaintiffs leg injury should attract an award of €70,000.
The plaintiff began to experience back pain after she regained mobility following the accident. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff was suffering from a degenerative joint injury and that there was no evidence of pre-existing back complications. The plaintiff gave evidence that she was not able to avail of pain-relieving injections as she was unable to remain in hospital for the treatment because of her PTSD. The court found the appropriate award of damages for the plaintiff’s bank injury was €30,000.
The plaintiff suffered a soft tissue injury to her left chest wall and injury to the left costochondral joints resulting in clinical costochondritis. The court noted this injury would attract an award of €20,000.
The plaintiff suffered PTSD as a result of the accident and this manifested itself in nightmares and flashbacks, and the plaintiff found it very difficult to attend hospital since the accident. The court noted the PTSD symptoms would attract an award of €20,000.
The court then considered the injuries as a whole and found that the chest injuries and PTSD should be discounted by 30% to account for the fact that they emerged from the same accident as the leg injury and treatment and recovery was over the same period. The court found that the back injury award should be discounted by 15% to take into account the fact that there was not the same temporal overlap in that it continued to cause pain and distress for quite some time after the other injuries were improving and that it would likely continue to cause pain and discomfort until the plaintiff was able to receive treatment. The court granted an overall award of general damages of €123,500.
The court awarded €28,572 for special damages to date and future special damages of €125,193 awarding a total of €279,191.